Among the last movies released in the bumper crop of Oscar-qualifyingyear-end deliveries was October Films' "Hilary and Jackie," openingwider today, the true story of two sisters, one of whom is theworld-famous cellist Jacqueline Du Pre, who slowly lost her ability toplay music from a crippling case of multiple sclerosis that eventuallytook her life in the mid-1980s. Emily Watson plays the wild, needy, andvolcanic Jackie, while Australian actress Rachel Griffiths plays themousy wallflower Hilary in director Anand Tucker's emotional symphony ofsibling rivalry and tortured heartbreak, based on the book "A Genius inthe Family," by Hilary and Piers du Pre. indieWIRE caught up with bothTucker and Griffiths in-between screenings at the Toronto Film Festivallast Fall to chat about the film's unique story structure, and elegantdance between performance and camerawork.

iW: Anand, in terms of directing Rachel with Emily Watson, it must be achallenge to coach a quiet performance from Rachel that won't getoverwhelmed by someone as flamboyant as Emily's character.

Anand Tucker: Well, to be honest, the emotional heart of the movie, thekind of center of the movie, is Rachel. Emily gets to be mad, sad,crazy, wild; but if she didn't have this incredible central power fromRachel holding the film together, the whole thing would fall to pieces.[To Rachel] And if you don't mind my saying, Rachel, what you do have isan amazing power -- there's an incredible strength to your acting.

iW: There's a real gravity to what you bring to the film, Rachel. Howdid you prepare for that sort of role?There's a real gravity to what you bring to the film, Rachel. Howdid you prepare for that sort of role?

Griffiths: Well, I don't really do a lot of gymnastics -- my approach toanything is to just completely understand why people do what they do andto kind of not judge that. Although I might have, as a modern youngwoman, said, "How did this woman throw away her musical career and getbogged down with having kids and put up with her nightmare sister?",that's not going to get me anywhere.

So you just kind of open your heart to the notion of love and lookaround you at complex families that you know, or intense siblingrelationships that you've experienced, which I had, and you just make itmore and more familiar and real and personal, so nothing is like an idea-- it's all emotional. We never sat down and intellectualized. Emilyand I never sat down and said, "Well, I'll do this and you do that." Wejust seemed to all come at it with this, just, head-turned-off,heart-open, and played our needs. We all just played our positions.

And both Emily and I were aware that Anand's great gift as a director ishis ability to shift subjectivity, and it's a non-judgmental film. It'sbasically saying that we all struggle the best we can -- families arevery, very complex. We do the best we can given the knowledge we haveand the sort of person we are. I like to think that this film is aboutwhat happens when someone takes up more room in the family, eitherthrough extraordinary ability, through disability, or through some kindof psychological fragility. And when that happens in a family, itchanges the family, that family is a different kind of beast becausethere is this element that has more needs. And that's not necessarily tothe family's disadvantage -- the family just is what it is. It's thewhole of the sum of its parts.

iW: And the film's storytelling strength comes from the sum of itssubjective parts -- by seeing multiple point-of-views, the audiencegains a greater sense of objectivity about the family. Anand, at whatpoint in the film's production was that decision made?

Tucker: It was completely a script decision -- and it wasn't my idea; itwas screenwriter Frank Cottrell Boyce's. We spent a year doing researchand talking to Hilary Du Pre and loads of people who knew Hilary andJackie, and we talked and talked about how to make this film. And wewere both trying to make a film from the heart. And Frank finally said,"Why don't we just show what it feels like to be Hilary, and then showwhat it feels like to be Jackie?" And that's what it's like infamilies.

Griffiths: And no one ever remembers the hurt they cause -- they onlyremember the hurt they feel.

Tucker: So it was completely not an intellectual decision or anythinglike that. It was a feeling decision. Someone said to me that the filmis a melodrama, and I thought, "fantastic." Because melodramas areabout trying to reach a bigger truth about emotions. But going back toRachel -- frankly she would know what was right or wrong on set, and ifthings weren't working, I would take my lead from Rachel's instincts.We trusted each other, didn't we? Because half the time, I didn't knowwhat the fuck was right or wrong. And sometimes they didn't know, andtogether we would figure it out.

Griffiths: And Anand is "Mr. One-take," and I realized that Emily and Iare both kind of one-takers, but at the time we would say, "Should we doanother, just for the hell of it?" And we would, and then Anand wouldsay, "That's it! Let's move on." And Emily and I used to have secretconversations -- "What's with this one-take business? Has he got nostandards? Or are we geniuses?"

iW: [Laughs] But that way you and Emily bonded, though, right?

Griffiths: We did! We did. But when we knew there wasn't somethingthere, Anand would make us articulate what we were trying to hit in thescene, which is sometimes incredibly subtle stuff.

Tucker: But I love chaos. And we didn't rehearse before production --

Griffiths: Yeah. We were bad on rehearsals.

Tucker: But that's good!

Griffiths: And Emily got trained on Lars Von Trier's films, so she washorrified to discover that you ever had to hit a mark as an actor! Shethought you'd do a film with an actor, and this film crew would runafter you. "What? I have to stand on a mark? But you follow mearound!" She was fucked. Completely. I mean, it's amazing that givenwe didn't rehearse, there is such a control in the camera.

Tucker: Oh, no, no -- but this is the key to it. I think that if youcast it right, if the people are essentially being themselves, thenthere is a truth in there. And if you trust that, it'll happen. Andthe job of the technical team is to make the camera dance with that.

iW: And one of the most impressive aspects of the film was thecamerawork -- I mean, that camera moved around a lot. To block thosescenes must have been a real challenge. And visually there were somevery expressionistic shots.

Tucker: Well, we had a plan -- everything was storyboarded, but youhave to be prepared to chuck it out the window when you get there.

iW: And your previous film, "Saint-Ex," is just as beautifully shot andas expressionistic.

Tucker: I think I threw the kitchen sink at it a bit [laughs]. I wastrying too hard, you know. But I remember Bruno Ganz [the star of"Saint-Ex"] saying to me, "You make me feel like a butterfly! You pinme to the wall!" And he wasn't used to that at all -- he used to say,"Oh, Wim [Wenders] and I -- "[everyone laughs] "Oh, way back with Wim!"

iW: Yeah, and I bet Emily pulled that stuff, too!

Griffiths: Yeah, she did! "Von Trier and me!" [Laughs] She kind ofchampioned me on this film, which made me adore her for the rest of mylife. And I was such a fan of her in "Breaking the Waves." But I thinkEmily really needs to do a comedy just so that she can really find outthat filmmaking can be fun.

Tucker: But the production was really punishing -- six-day weeks foreight weeks. But we made the movie the way we wanted to make it. And itwas like making three different films, including the film with the kids,the film about Hilary, and the film about Jackie. And sometimes none ofthese people met -- it was weird.

iW: Rachel, did you ever meet Hilary before finishing the movie?

Griffiths: No. And definitely not to prepare for the role, either.And I knew I was right not to meet her when in the movie we were sittingdown to dinner and David Morrissey complained about the chicken beingserved since, in real life, his character Kiffer Finzi was avegetarian. I just thought, "Oh, fucking eat your chicken!" [Laughs]And I was so glad I wasn't bogged down with the particular details.

Tucker: But after Hilary du Pre had seen the film, she called David andsaid to him, "You know, Kiffer, you were David, completely. But there'sonly one thing -- one thing! -- you didn't get right. Kiffer doesn'thave a hairy back." [Everyone laughs].

Griffiths: He should have waxed!

iW: He should have waxed.

Griffiths: Did she say there was anything I didn't get right?

Tucker: No -- she though you were perfect.

Griffiths: Yeah, well, she's better looking and her tits are bigger --what's she got to complain about? [laughs]. But I came to this filmcompletely ignorant about Hilary and Jackie du Pre. And when I heardabout the picture, I thought, "ugh, a bio-pic about a cellist who getsM.S. Who cares?" I thought it was a movie-of-the-week; why do it? Andthen I read the script and realized that the story does have thisextraordinary resonance.